I agree with linanil. Each individual can only speak to their own experience.

Example: I'm not a POC. I am, however, the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, and while I don't personally take offense to Holocaust comparisons (depending on how they're phrased, who is making the comparison, and the context in which and the degree of sensitivity with which the comparison is made) I absolutely understand why others would take offense at the comparison, and also don't think it's either necessary or effective. I also feel like my personal history in this respect has in part informed the choices I make in my life (including the choice to be vegan), and I don't really need someone who has no idea how this has shaped my mother's life and the impact of history on my family, making that comparison from an outside perspective. I posted a longer post about this, but it got eaten in the Great Groundhog Day incident yesterday.

Co-opting someone else's history/tragedy for your own cause is, I think, never really the way to go. Other people have already made the point that oppressions of marginalized groups have been justified by comparing them to animals or considering them sub-human. Also, people who consider animals < humans will never be convinced that the socially sanctioned processes of animal agriculture can be viewed in the same light as atrocities against humans. And I don't think they need to be. Suffering is bad in its own right. We don't have to create a hierarchy of suffering to validate that concept. I think what needs to happen is for people to start accepting that YES, animals are capable of suffering just as keenly as humans, and YES, animal agriculture - which exists for the sake of our tastebuds - contributes significantly to that suffering.

I'll tell you what made it click for me: comparing animal suffering to animal suffering. I saw a woman with a pampered Yorkie leaving a butcher's shop where birds were rotating on a spit outside. The disconnect just rankled with me, and I realized that if most people found out that dogs and cats were being routinely treated the way food animals are treated (and on an industrial scale), there would be an uproar. And yet we PAY for food animals to be treated that way for the "pleasure" of eating BBQ and drinking milk. I think getting people to understand that the animals that they eat have the same capacity to feel pain and suffer as the animals they love, would be a more effective strategy for a lot of folks than co-opting the histories of oppressed people.

_________________I ate the shiitake out of inappropriateness. - Hollie

I try not to use Holocaust or slavery analogies because I don't think borrowed outrage is as effective as explaining what is going on. As with anything you need to be mindful of your audience.

You know what was so effective to me? A friend pointed out that the reason they invented chocolate milk is that the chocolate covers up all the blood in the milk that they can't get white again. It really brought home to me how very cruel dairy is.

_________________My oven is bigger on the inside, and it produces lots of wibbly wobbly, cake wakey... stuff. - The PoopieB.

I agree with linanil. Each individual can only speak to their own experience.

Example: I'm not a POC. I am, however, the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, and while I don't personally take offense to Holocaust comparisons (depending on how they're phrased, who is making the comparison, and the context in which and the degree of sensitivity with which the comparison is made) I absolutely understand why others would take offense at the comparison, and also don't think it's either necessary or effective. I also feel like my personal history in this respect has in part informed the choices I make in my life (including the choice to be vegan), and I don't really need someone who has no idea how this has shaped my mother's life and the impact of history on my family, making that comparison from an outside perspective. I posted a longer post about this, but it got eaten in the Great Groundhog Day incident yesterday.

Co-opting someone else's history/tragedy for your own cause is, I think, never really the way to go. Other people have already made the point that oppressions of marginalized groups have been justified by comparing them to animals or considering them sub-human. Also, people who consider animals < humans will never be convinced that the socially sanctioned processes of animal agriculture can be viewed in the same light as atrocities against humans. And I don't think they need to be. Suffering is bad in its own right. We don't have to create a hierarchy of suffering to validate that concept.

Yes, thank you! I didn't see your original post, but this is how I feel. Also, my experiences as a latina born in Arizona are my own individual experiences. Even my sister and I have different lived experiences related to being latina. I personally was not offended by the request for input from persons of color, but don't like the original assumotion that poc weren't necessarily part of the conversation already.

Also, the reason the Holocaust could even be carried out was the extreme propaganda efforts toward dehumanizing Jews (even though many others were killed, this particular propaganda was overwhelmingly about Jews). Comparing factory farming to the Holocaust may feel like it's "humanizing" animals to some, but it feels like a re-dehumanizing of Jews to others. I think the second feeling should be privileged here and I think we should avoid all potential offenses to already deeply injured and insulted people when pursuing an animal liberation agenda. Liberating animals should not come at the expense of wounding humans.

I feel that way even though I think there are some uncanny comparisons to be made both of propaganda techniques and methods of brutality between the two situations.

I think that analogies is where things get dubious. Direct comparisons make sense, though. So like, saying "Imagine getting anally electrocuted, that would forking hurt. Well, that's what happens to foxes." But saying "Dairy production is slavery" can be offensive. That's my opinion, anyway.

Here's one of my questions that got lost in the flood. But what if the person you're trying to convince responds saying, "Well, they're only animals." Isn't that when you need to talk about speciesism, or how we're socialized to value the most trivial human interests over the most fundamental animal ones? And doesn't that easily lead into comparisons with racism, whether you want it to or not?

I really doubt that someone who doesn't care about animals is going to care about speciesism.

I guess when I think back on it, what did it for me was Singer making the "argument from marginal cases." I didn't really have an abnormal affection for animals. I just couldn't argue with his logic.

I guess I think that part of the animal rights movement's goal is to break down the artificial barrier between humanity and other species, and instead look at life as continuum, which might provide equal moral weight to a human with profound mental disabilities and a chimpanzee, for instance. And if we give up on making SOME comparisons between human and animal suffering, don't we cede ground?

As always, I'm interested in what you folks have to say. I'm trying to figure out my own thoughts. I really don't know what I'm talking about.

Comparing factory farming to the Holocaust may feel like it's "humanizing" animals to some, but it feels like a re-dehumanizing of Jews to others. I think the second feeling should be privileged here and I think we should avoid all potential offenses to already deeply injured and insulted people when pursuing an animal liberation agenda. Liberating animals should not come at the expense of wounding humans.

B.Vicious posted this From The Young Black and Vegan that I thought was great about the comparison between slavery of human and non-humans that echoes what you said.

Quote:

PoC have historically been treated worse than animals. Think of how quick people are sad when an animal dies…but when they hear of a shooting in an area filled with PoC, it’s seen as no big deal. White vegans use this tactic, as if to say, “oh, remember slavery? well slavery for animals is bad too!” without realizing that PoC were and are seen as less than animals…how can you ask someone to fight for animals…when their humanity is questioned?

I guess I think that part of the animal rights movement's goal is to break down the artificial barrier between humanity and other species, and instead look at life as continuum, which might provide equal moral weight to a human with profound mental disabilities and a chimpanzee, for instance. And if we give up on making SOME comparisons between human and animal suffering, don't we cede ground?

As always, I'm interested in what you folks have to say. I'm trying to figure out my own thoughts. I really don't know what I'm talking about.

I don't think you're going to make many friends by comparing a person with intellectual disabilities to a chimpanzee.

_________________"I'd rather have dried catshit! I'd rather have astroturf! I'd rather have an igloo!"~Isa

"But really, anyone willing to dangle their baby in front of a crocodile is A-OK in my book."~SSD

I don't know how to continue this conversation without potentially offending people. Maybe that means I shouldn't continue. If people want me to stop I will. But I don't necessarily think the quote above is true. For instance, I would prefer to be a human slave then a chicken in a battery cage. I think a lot of people familiar with layer hens' lives would agree.

Tofulish wrote:

Quote:

Think of how quick people are sad when an animal dies.

This is only true of companion animals. Very few give a shiitake about the billions and billions of farmed animals we torture and kill every year.

The common thread between Holocaust comparisons and slavery comparisons is that as Ariann says, you are using a group of people who have been dehumanized to humanize animals. I think Ariann says it perfectly.

_________________My oven is bigger on the inside, and it produces lots of wibbly wobbly, cake wakey... stuff. - The PoopieB.

Do people take offense when people call the plight of Palestinians "apartheid?" I don't. All struggles I know of draw on past struggles for legitimacy. But this probably isn't a fair comparison. I recognize that marginalized human groups' oppression has historically been justified by comparing them to animals. So there needs to be extreme sensitivity there.

I don't know how to continue this conversation without potentially offending people. Maybe that means I shouldn't continue. If people want me to stop I will. But I don't necessarily think the quote above is true. For instance, I would prefer to be a human slave then a chicken in a battery cage. I think a lot of people familiar with layer hens' lives would agree.

Given the history of slavery in the US I frankly find a white person saying that to be somewhere between offensive and meaningless.

_________________"I'd rather have dried catshit! I'd rather have astroturf! I'd rather have an igloo!"~Isa

"But really, anyone willing to dangle their baby in front of a crocodile is A-OK in my book."~SSD

I prefer to use fact when I discuss veganism with people, rather than make comparisons that are going to be hurtful to others. For example, it is a fact that in the dairy industry, calves are taken away from their mothers. It is a fact that veal calves are fed to be anemic. There are all sorts of facts about things that occur in factory farms, or slaughterhouses, including a fact about chicken slaughter in particular that I don't want to post for fear of upsetting someone.

I think that sharing facts with people when I am asked about veganism will work better than making hurtful comparisons, or accosting them with graphic images. If I can give a simplified version of something that happens which I morally disagree with, I think that non-vegans will be more receptive.

Also, I know it's in fictional movies or tv shows, but I can't count the number of times I have heard the group in power refer to an oppressed group as "worse than animals" as a means to justify continued oppression.

_________________"I will rip out your IV and other roman numerals." - pandacookie"The one thing I would not do for Aubrey Plaza is harm a baby, by the way." - strawberryrock

I think a plate of cookies and a kind, compassionate attitude towards all forms of life inspires more interest in veganism than making comparisons which can potentially hurt or offend. Unless you're one of the posters that has been telling me sugar is evil, then my cookies might offend you. I can understand your interest in communicating the ethics of veganism in ways that will resonate with people, but as others have stated more eloquently than I could that potential perils of that, why even go there? The facts of what happens to animals are bad enough. The bigger challenge to me is not the number of people that don't care about animals, but rather the number of people that care about animals but feel like veganism is impossible. Make veganism look easy and accessible. I think that is the way to be an effective messenger.

Honestly, I rather someone try to talk about their thought patterns and ideas and hopefully understand why others would disagree rather than just putting it out there. I came to veganism because I realized it wasn't the extreme as I had thought and it was accessible. Once I realized that it was doable, I had no problem actually doing it. I don't think you are loathesome but I hope you understand our objections.

_________________You are all a disgrace to vegans. Go f*ck yourselves, especially linanil.

All right, I'm starting to feel like the most loathsome person on the PPK. I'm going to take a breather from this thread.

You are not even close! Don't worry - talking about things is one way to learn.

I have a masters degree which focused on Holocaust studies. When I think of the Holocaust, I think of an 80 year old survivor from Amsterdam who lives locally. He still cries when he tells students about his father dying, in his arms, on the side of a road on the death march out of Auschwitz as the Soviets advanced. I can't imagine using experiences of people like him to build an argument about animal rights.

I know I found the small stories about individual people more heart wrenching than the lists of statistics. I think that what Farm Sanctuary does, telling the stories of the individual animals they've rescued, is more effective than shock tactics.

_________________A whole lot of access and privilege goes into being sanctimonious pricks J-DubDessert is currently a big bowl of sanctimonious, passive aggressive vegan enduced boak. FezzaYou people are way less funny than Pandacookie. Sucks to be you.-interrobang?!

If people don't feel compassion for animals, then they aren't going to be vegan (for ethical reasons anyway), so there's not really much point in comparing factory farms to slavery or the holocaust because most people (myself included) don't see it that way. Also many people don't really want to be compared to animals, so if you tell them that their grandmother dying in the holocaust is just like the suffering of cows, then not only are you a manipulative jerk, they're going to get pissed off.

eta:: err...sorry if that sounded really harsh. i was typing and then imagined how I would feel if someone tried to convince me to be vegan by using something personal against me. i think i'd feel really shitty!

I don't believe that I feel compassion for animals but I'm vegan for ethical reasons. I guess maybe my understanding of the word compassion is different, then.

If people don't feel compassion for animals, then they aren't going to be vegan (for ethical reasons anyway), so there's not really much point in comparing factory farms to slavery or the holocaust because most people (myself included) don't see it that way. Also many people don't really want to be compared to animals, so if you tell them that their grandmother dying in the holocaust is just like the suffering of cows, then not only are you a manipulative jerk, they're going to get pissed off.

eta:: err...sorry if that sounded really harsh. i was typing and then imagined how I would feel if someone tried to convince me to be vegan by using something personal against me. i think i'd feel really shitty!

I don't believe that I feel compassion for animals but I'm vegan for ethical reasons. I guess maybe my understanding of the word compassion is different, then.

hm, i guess i was probably just generalizing too much. what I said is probably not the case for every single person. I should have stated it differently. by compassion i meant caring about animal suffering.

_________________I am not a troll. I am TELLING YOU THE ******GOD'S TRUTH****** AND YOU JUST DON'T WANT THE HEAR IT DO YOU?

I know I found the small stories about individual people more heart wrenching than the lists of statistics. I think that what Farm Sanctuary does, telling the stories of the individual animals they've rescued, is more effective than shock tactics.

I agree completely! I think that is why people get so offended when you compare animals to the holocaust or slavery or whatever horrible things humans have done to other humans; if you have a personal story to connect with that you are going to be appalled.

Any time I get into a debate about veganism the walls come right up. But I can talk about the turkeys at farm sanctuary all day, or other particular animals that I have heard about and all types of people seem interested and receptive. They will ask me questions about if that happens to all animals or what about organic and then we can talk about that. Since a lot of the farm sanctuary animals come from scenarios where they were just about to be slaughtered it's easy to talk about the evils there. If they try to start an argument about animal sentience or canine teeth or whatever other bs they want to argue about, I just bring it back to the particular animal. It's taken me a long time to talk to people this way rather than getting into arguments that I find totally unhelpful and personally upsetting.

In my office (and I just work in a regular old office) I have pictures of rescued turkey's, we have a fundraiser every year around this time, and people always want to know about them. We also have a calendar of beagles who were rescued from animal testing. They all have terrible stories too about having their vocal cords removed and what not but now they have happy homes. People always want to know about them and I'm positive it makes some people think about getting products that aren't animal tested. Just like vegan baked good, I think the most effective way to dialog with people is to have them come to you. Why are you saving these turkeys? Why don't you use eggs? Why do you need vegan cowboy boots? It works! I do have to deal with a lot of stupid jokes but I know for a fact that these types of activities have made an impact on some folks. They see what wonderful stuff you are doing and they want to know more rather than waving pictures of beef cows on the train to Auschwitz.

Think about something else you feel strongly about too and tactics that people use that bother you. For example, I am extremely pro-choice. I don't want to hear anything anyone has to say on the other side. It is not a topic I will bend one inch on. If I met someone with gross pictures of aborted fetuses I certainly would never ever want to talk with them. If they say a fetus is the same as an infant I am going to be disgusted because they are making comparisons that my own experience have shown to be untrue and I will think that they are a moron. But if I met the same person and they were working to raise money for babies addicted to crack or if they were helping families with books for the holidays I would think of that person as an ally and want to help. If I later learned they were anti-abortion I would be disappointed but think of them as a good person. Appealing to someone's compassion and working to become more compassionate myself are really the key for me.

I think getting people to understand that the animals that they eat have the same capacity to feel pain and suffer as the animals they love, would be a more effective strategy for a lot of folks than co-opting the histories of oppressed people.

Yes, this too. I just don't believe it's necessary to frame arguments in terms of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade or Holocaust. You can describe the conditions and express your outrage without saying that.

Comparisons with Holocaust and slavery can be efficient arguments... as long as they stay in the philosophy classroom! In practical everyday life, they are counter-productive. First, because — as stated before by other ppk'ers — they can be perceived as diminishing or degrading the personal experience of discrimination victims. And second, because most people don't want to enter a philosophic debate regarding anti-speciesism, particularly if it begins with a slavery argument. And if they do, they generally don't want the debate to influence their life anyway!

I think that our best allies — as lepelaar and Vantine said — are the comparison of companion animals with food animals, and the small testimonies about individual people and individual animals.

That said, if we really want to talk about speciesism by comparing homo sapiens with other species, then let's do it in a way that is undoubtedly humanizing for everyone, both for humans and animals!

For an example, this speech does that very well: it compares human and animal behaviors without discriminating one or the other. It gives personality to animals without de-humanizing humans. And as a human being, I find it quite gratifying! So if you have half an hour of free time, I think that this video is worth watching.

The actual speech begins at 5:10, so skip the annoying part at the beginning ;)

To briefly put things into context: this is Robert Sapolsky. His beard kicks asparagus! He also happens to be a professor of neurological and biological sciences at Stanford University. In this video, Sapolsky spoke about the uniqueness of humans in relation to the rest of the animal world: what makes us less unique, and what makes us unique-er. How we share a lot of behaviors with other animals, and at the same time express them in a completely unprecedented way.

I couldn't find a transcript of the speech, but it follows that pattern:

Robert Sapolsky wrote:

1. Aggression: we are not the only one that kills members of our own species in an organized manner. But humans are unique as they are capable of passive aggression, looking the other way, and damning with faint praise...

2. Theory of mind: I'm able of realizing that somebody else has different thoughts than me. So do individuals of other species. But we, humans, have the secondary theory of mind, which means we understand that different persons know different informations, and that someone knows something that someone else don't.

3. The Golden Rule: many animals follow the "Tit for Tat reciprocity". But we are able of reciprocity in a particular way, depending of our desire and values.

4. Empathy: many animals express empathy, especially for innocent individuals who don't deserve what is happening to them. But human can express empathy in an extended and abstract way.

5. Pleasure: animals release dopamine in anticipation of a reward, and the more uncertain the reward, the more dopamine is released. Human are unique in that they can anticipate a reward for a very long time, and are able of holding on something that is very uncertain. For an example, we hope (during our whole lifetime) for a good afterlife.

6. Culture: animals are able of cultural transmission (of tool-making and use, of vocalisations, of group temperament, ...). But humans culture is unprecedentedly complex.

Sapolsky concludes that the uniqueness of humans resides in the fact that we live in contradiction: "the less it is possible that something can be, the most it must be". This is, according to Sapolsky, the property that makes us not only unique-er, but unique-est among the other species.